Quote from: Wilm on May 07, 2022, 06:01

You're welcome, Annie!

You write that the buyers no longer read. And that's true. It's the same with the Creative Market contributor. She writes pages and pages of tutorials on how to handle the Photoshop files. But no buyer reads through that. And even if they do: if they don't know what a layer is, or a Smart Object, or a layer style, or, or... then of course it's useless.

I myself have sold something on eBay from time to time. And have always written that I do not ship to foreign countries outside the European Union (because of shipping problems, customs declarations, shipping insurance, etc.). Of course, then someone who didn't read that buys it and you start all over again.

Time is Cash, Time is Money! I can really understand your decision and would have done the same for sure.

The reading thing is also a problem in microstock. Hardly anyone reads the license terms. We lose a lot of money because many licenses that should have been extended are bought as standard licenses. And these are then often enough used illegally by POD stores.

Ah, I just realised who the contributor is. A very talented lady who is a graphic designer, and a very successful microstocker..

Yes, I agree with what you said above. I may go back to Etsy later, but for now its nice to have a 'sanity' break.

I just closed my Etsy account but not because of fees or lack of sales. In fact, kind of the opposite.

The fees are fine. Less than eBay, and less than agencies (up to 85%!) and then set their own prices. Even less than designer resource agencies who take about 30% but at least let you set your own price.

But the problem is, when your sales start to take off, you are faced with a new kind of problem: buyers. Some of them are wonderful, kind, understanding people, but about 10% are absolute nutcases. They don't read your listings, they mistakenly buy the wrong thing, they expect you to answer their messages immediately (even within an hour is too long for them), they don't take responsibility for their own mistakes, everything is your fault, and they are so full of anger. You do all the right things, you explain everywhere throughout the listing, in both pictures and words what this listing is actually for. But they don't read the listings!

Normally with enough time and patience, you can work through these problems, but I just had 2 in a row, and I feel like I've been hit by a sledgehammer.

The point is, you have to 'man your messaging' 24/7. The more sales you make, the more of this stuff you have to deal with.

Anyway, the reason why I've closed my shop is that I have to go away for a few months to work for my husband's business and I can't have all this drama going on in the background. I think I could have put the shop on holiday mode or something, but for now, it was just nice to close the whole thing for a while, and have some peace and quiet.

So this is what you pay the agencies for. Managing buyers.  Food for thought, everybody!



PS. I loved being on Etsy and loved 80% of the whole 'selling direct/running your own little business' thing, but it can get you down if you have a bad week.

Quote from: Wilm on May 02, 2022, 04:38

I had exactly 8 downloads of easter images (I have only a handful) at AS in the period from April 1 to 14. That was probably not enough for the Hall of Fame... 

Ouch!  But then again holidays isn't really the focus of your portfolio.

Quote from: Annie on May 01, 2022, 10:09

Quote from: SVH on April 14, 2022, 14:39

Anyone got a $100 plus commission?

I received a straight $70 commission for a clip sale on Adobe the other day. That was always their full 4k commission before subs came in. It was for one of my clips that often sell as establishing shots (for movies, documentaries, tv shows, etc) that are outside the standard subscription models on SS and now I suspect on AS too.

The $100+ commissions are typically for these type of clips sales with extra seats. 

You are probably talking just photos, but with the value of video sales falling on AS, I thought it is worth noting.

Good one, Annie!

I also got a $70 sale, but this one was the best of April on AS.

Quote from: Justanotherphotographer on May 02, 2022, 02:40

Quote from: KuriousKat on April 29, 2022, 02:59

You are right that we don't know how much, but we do know from other posts that Shutterstock were actively buying out content. I have a couple of friends who were approached within my circle of contributor friends, and saw 3 or 4 posts on this forum and another. All I can do is extrapolate from that and make an educated guess that it wasn't an insignificant amount. I could, of course be totally wrong.

Sorry, posted before I read this.

It was discussed in some thread here before, with contributors saying they got the offer (or at least a non-disclosure agreement. If you didn't sign that, you didn't get any further information), so I don't think it was that rare.

Quote

For an abo microstock agency i can't see any reason to take stolen images seriously.
These images (work) could be also available at free images site.
So what ?

Ever work in a company that has an office refrigerator?  I did.  People would put food and drinks in there all the time only to find it missing later in the day.  One day, I heard one co-worker ask another, "Did you take my diet coke?"  The thief replied, "I'm sorry.  I didn't know it was yours."  That "excuse" pissed me off for two reasons.  The first, because the thief admitted stealing his co-worker's drink.  But when I heard his "apology", I wanted to interject, "But you KNEW it wasn't yours, so why did you take it?"

Let's call copyright infringement what it is: theft.  Once upon a time, possessing and selling stolen property was a crime in its own right.  It doesn't matter if the actual copyright holder wants to display his/her images on a free site or Flickr: it's completely irrelevant what a copyright holder does with their images.  What is patently illegal is for someone else or a company, like Shutterstock, to distribute or sell images that neither have the permission to possess or sell, or have the copyrights to.  I don't care what Shutterstock's defense is: they KNEW at least after the first cease and desist order, the images were not licensed for sale by them.  So I would ask them the same thing I would've asked that co-worker: you KNEW the images weren't yours to sell, so why did you sell them? 

If people don't protect their copyrights, then they lose them.  The plaintiff in this case is protecting his right to sell, distribute, and display his images as HE sees fit.  He should be applauded.  If Shutterstock loses this case, it's a win for all of us. IMHO.

Actually i don't check my images at Adobe Stock. I even do no stock statistics any more.
The statistic site at Adobe Stock is doing well for me.
As far i can say, i see no much difference at Adobe Stock on average DL and $$. Everything seems OK. Though i don't care about what images are selling. Maybe there have been a change, i don't know.
There are some images from 2011 to 2022. All are good enough to sell from time to time.

I�m approaching another milestone and thought about posting a thread but I don�t think people would be interested.

Quote from: Wilm on April 24, 2022, 15:01

April is also worse for me at AS than March. But that has always been the case over the years. I can't see any change in the algorithm.

Regarding the downloads, it is about 10% less in April in the same period. In terms of revenue, I have a minus of about 25%. But that is probably more due to coincidence. Probably I had significantly more enhanced licenses in March.

my port isn't affected by month - there are ups & downs, but they average out - which why a 3�5-month running average is more appropriate to such a stochastic process as ms sales(even more so for small portfolios- cf law of small numbers); and worse,  we don't have detailed reporting from the agencies to create a statistically significant result, so individual anecdotes can't explain varying results